Off with their heads!

Much like the oafish Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland, who belligerently demands the heads of all those who oppose her, Amy Mischler is at it again. If you can stomach the bile and vitriol, you can see on her blog that she's now, in fact, suing nearly everybody in the state of Kentucky:

Pike County Injustice Files: Mischler v. Commonwealth 08-CI-1039: General Factual Basis III.

Watch out Indiana and Ohio. YOU'RE NEXT.

We've been content to lay low for a long while, and will probably do so again, but we thought there was some ... interesting ... material in Mischler's latest post. Here are the offending quotes from that diatribe:

44. The Plaintiff spent forty percent of her income taking both the children to the doctor multiple times because Stevens refused to take the children to a follow up. At no time had Hall attempt to set motions for child support and health insurance on the docket after November 2005.

45. Unable to afford her son's medicine; the Plaintiff then exercised her First Amendment Right against Hall and Stevens for denying her child support prosecution against Stevens for eleven months from when she had applied with Hall's office. She was also protesting being denied access to the Courts. See Exhibit 6.

49. Judge Paxton convicted the Plaintiff of domestic violence for marching in public with a sign. See Exhibit 10.

Now, here's where we hope that Mischler will finally be taken to task and held accountable for her abuse of the legal system.

First, Astute readers of this blog will know that Mischler was not convicted of domestic violence for marching in public. The "conviction" had nothing to do with her marching in public. It had everything to do with her forcing her sick son to humiliate himself in public, holding a sign that demeaned his own father and begging for money like a trained monkey.

Let that simmer a bit, horrific as it is.

Now, is it just us, or is in't it curious how Mischler always manages to leave that part out? (As an aside, has Mischler ever returned the money she obtained from well-meaning Kentuckians under false pretenses?)

Second, Mischler claims that she didn't have enough money to pay for her children's medical needs, despite admitting to the Appalachian News-Express that Attorney Jonah Stevens was, in fact, giving her $800 a month AND had maintained health insurance for the children and was able to produce receipts.

Once again, another example of Mischler playing fast and loose with the truth. We can only hope that, somewhere, somehow, a judge or a court will have the courage to stand up and do what's right and hold this woman accountable.

Ask and ye shall know

We thought we'd take a second to answer a few questions Mischler posted on her own blog, recently. We'll take them in sections:

1. Why do so many people keep coming back to look at this blog even though there are no new posts?

Easy, the information is that good, or that bad depending on your perspective.

Actually, it's probably more along the lines of folks are tuning in to document the latest libel and slander that spills forth from your site, Mischler. Would that we could ignore you (we'd love to, trust us) but somebody has to make sure the truth gets out.

2. Why does attorney Jonah Stevens refuse to turn over his tax returns? Does he have something to hide?

What benefit do you derive from asking such a question publicly? Should we ask for a public accounting of YOUR tax records? Wouldn't that be interesting? We imagine it would be educational to see how you would care for your children given that you are thus far representing yourself as having no job.

That question will be answered when the new Judge orders Stevens to turn them over. And like the comic above, all those people who have helped Stevens are going to be hung out to dry along with him.

Ah, we come to the meat of it. The real point is you want to make another veiled threat. Rest assured the Stevens family has been notified of the threats you've made to their employment, and we'll be sure to pass along this latest threat as well.

So there you have it. Though we're loathe to admit it, we do have to check the claptrap "pikecountyinjusticefiles" site from time to time.

Impeachment up in smoke!

Big news folks - Mischler's misguided attempt to have Attorney General Greg Stumbo impeached as part of her personal vendetta against her ex-husband has been flatly denied.

You can see the entire report here. Mark Hebert, who "broke" the story of Mischler's impeachment attempt (thus giving Mischler her fifteen minutes of fame as well as an undeserved platform to use against her ex-husband and her children), is now recounting the failure of the motion.

Side note: We personally wonder how long before Mischler files to have Kathy Stein impeached, as well. That seems, after all, to be the Mischler M.O.

Most importantly, however, we wanted to bring one portion of Hebert's notes to your attention, because it jibes with what we've been telling you for quite some time now. From Mark Hebert (the emphasis is ours):

During the 2007 session, House leaders referred the impeachment papers to the Judiciary Committee. Committee chairman Rep. Kathy Stein (D) Lexington, told me she reviewed Mischler's allegations and didn't believe they warranted a full review by her committee or any action by the senate. Stein says she also looked into Mischler's background and the reasons for her seeking Stumbo's ouster from office, finding some troubling information.. She did not get specific.

We're sure we can all agree that "troubling" is a vast understatement. "Horrific" might have been a better term.

We here at Truth is Crucial are hoping Mark Hebert goes the extra mile and reports on Mischler's other activities. We're sure those who rallied to her defense will be delighted to hear about Mischler's forcing her own son to beg for money while sick.

As a side note, thanks to all those who have offered their support and their well wishes. We don't have a site counter because we're more interested in the truth than in bogus Web site statistics, but we appreciate the kind words nonetheless. We'll continue to fight the good fight as long as need be. God bless you all.

Fish in a barrel ...

Greetings again, folks. We thought we'd take a bit of time to shed some light on more of Mischler's ramblings. Turns out she's got a whole new spate of garbage we can use as fodder, notwithstanding an attempt at insult she took down regarding her opponent's hairline. While it doesn't surprise us that she'd do as much, it would be akin to us making jokes about her weight - it's just too easy and, quite frankly, juvenile.

Regardless, here we go. Just a couple of quite ones tonight. You can read the entire posts at Mischler's blog site, if you can bear it.

1. You, Keith Hall placed a copy of google map as the first document in the open records request as page one. This map shows the my home address. I did not request a map of my home in the Open Records Request to you. By placing this map in the open records request; you stated that you knew where I lived. That is a threat against my personal safety and the individuals that live in the household.

Now, the interesting thing about this is, Mischler herself made a clear threat to her ex-husband's family, using the children as tool in said threat. She won't own up to it now, but it was clear as day, and you can see our previous posts for proof. However, sending someone a Google map with their address on it is now a threat, according to Mischler. We've long since given up trying to guess what goes on in her brain, but we find this laughable enough that it needs no further comment - especially when you become aware that Mischler's own father threatened her ex-husband with bodily harm in front of a group of witnesses.

Here's the kicker, and another example of Mischler just being completely being oblivious to the truth:

Third, how you violated my Fourth Amendment rights when you and my ex husband Jonah Stevens conspired to have me falsely arrested

Once more, folks, Mischler was arrested because she made an attempt to abscond with the children. They were missing for nearly twenty four hours, with nary an attempt by Mischler to contact the custodial parent. It's pretty simple law, folks - it doesn't take a law graduate to understand it (though one would expect a law graduate to have some semblance of a clue, assuming they had any amount of integrity).

But there you have it. She set them up, we knocked them down - our work here is done. For now.

Mischler intends to deny her children access to her husband's family

Greetings, folks - we've got a bit of news to impart. Mischler has once again shown her stripes and has shown the depths to which see will sink, and the extent to which she will use her own children as weapons.

We've taken the liberty of posting in the "I'm Innocent" comments section, and Mischler has responded. We've no doubt the comments won't last, as they continue to show Mischler in an amazingly unflattering light. And so we're reproducing the entire conversation here, with emphasis on noteworthy sections (including threats to Attorney Jonah Steven's brother's employment and the threat to deny the children access to their paternal family):

Trustworthy said...

"Innocent" like OJ?

Tuesday, March 06, 2007 2:14:00 AM

Amy Mischler said...

Yes for the world to know, I am innocent as has a jury deemed OJ Simpson.

However, I was NOT originally convicted by a jury of my peers. I was convicted by a single judge who had at least three ex parte communications as demonstrated by the official court record.

And unlike OJ Simpson, the prosecuting witness has no grounds to sue me. I am going to sue him for abuse of legal process.

And for the record, Trustworthy is my ex husband.

What does Bible say? Something about there is no sleep for the wicked? I was snoozing at 2:14 in the morning.

Oh, and by the way trustworthy. I will be putting an answer to your offer to settle in the mail today.

Tuesday, March 06, 2007 7:11:00 AM

Trustworthy said...

Thankfully, I am not nor will I ever be your ex-husband. But is it true that you're now attempting to criticize me for posting at a late hour? Why, I recall you having posted at late hours, too. See, some of us have lives and are forced to work for a living, so we can't always post in the middle of the day.

But nice dodge. You know you're not "innocent." May the Lord forgive you for what you're doing to those children.

Tuesday, March 06, 2007 6:24:00 PM

Amy Mischler said...

You're right. There were two times at which I posted in the middle of the night. I think those were in October, around the time of my preliminary hearings. I had nightmares due to my false arrest and did some writing to try to get the nightmares out of my head.

However, those two occasions months ago during a particularly stressful time are the exception rather than the rule.

It's funny how you condemn me for allegedly being a bad mom, but you don't condemn Jonah Stevens for having me arrested. Isn't it bad for the children when a father has the mother arrested? Moreover, he intended to have me arrested in front of the children. Isn't that bad for the kids too?

Please continue to pray for me Trustworthy, because I need all the prayers I can get to fight the corruption in the Eastern Kentucky Legal system. Also, pray along with me for my ex husband Jonah Stevens.

Once he was most blessed, but he took it all for granted. He planted bad seed, and its now harvest time and Jonah is going to reap what he has sowed.

Wednesday, March 07, 2007 8:55:00 AM

Trustworthy said...

Having seen what you did to your own son in the Appalachian News Express, I would say having you arrested was the best thing that could have been done for your children. It's a pity you've been able to manipulate the legal system to avoid real punishment.

You were not falsely arrested, and you know it. You are not "innocent" and you know it. What you seem incapable of understanding is the amount of suffering you are going to cause your own children. They are the ones who truly deserve prayers, and they are the ones who we're praying for over at truthiscrucial.blogspot.com

Thursday, March 08, 2007 2:30:00 AM

Amy Mischler said...

I just don't know what to say "Trustworthy". First, you speak as "we" which in itself is a little freaky.

Two, your delusional in your thinking. Kim Thompson, the attorney for Jonah Stevens had several ex parte communications with the Judge. That is manipulation of the legal system by the Petitioner. There is not one iota of evidence that I supposedly manipulated "the system" because I haven't.

Third, you claim you are not Jonah Stevens, then you must be his brother Terry Stevens. I am ruling out Trina and Chris because they are christians and wouldn't make the type of comments you have made on here.

So its like this Mr. Trustworthy; the writing is on the wall. Jonah Stevens is going to lose everything. And I am quite familiar with the rules requiring any type of visitation with extended family.

It's in the case Troxville Vs. Granville. A fit parents doesn't have to allow visitation with extended family.

You sow bad seed Trustworthy, your going to reap it.

Thursday, March 08, 2007 10:20:00 AM

Amy Mischler said...

Oh, and one other thing. It's my understanding that KET employees are non-merit and can be fired at will.

Thursday, March 08, 2007 10:21:00 AM

And a moment ago, we responded with the following, which we doubt will appear publicly:

Strike two, Mischler. We don't work at KET. "We" are a group of individuals who are concerned about the children, that's all that really matters. Though we must admit it amuses us a bit that you're wracking your brain as to our identities.

It is very interesting that you have now admitted you would deny access to the extended family for your own children. I'm sure Stevens will find that useful in court, as will he find it useful that you're engaging in an obvious vendetta, hoping he's going to "lose everything."

Are your children aware of your plans? I'm sure they'd find it interesting that you intend to deny them access to their own families. Tsk tsk.

The only real writing on the wall is that you care beans about your own children and are more interested in bringing down those who you perceive have wronged you. Your actions and your words speak to that much, and it's also clear you're willing to use your own children as weapons to get what you want.

That is why we will continue to put truth to your lies. Your children deserve better.

So there you have it. We'll attempt to contact the Stevens family so they can be aware of the threats to their time with the children and to their employment - perhaps they'll want to take legal action or contact the authorities. Also please note that Mischler advises that "fit" parents don't have to permit visitation by extended family. We're left wondering whether a "fit" parent would deny their own children medicine when they had the means to provide it? Or would a "fit" parent humiliate a child by forcing him to beg for money publicly?

Crucial Question #3 and a Truth Alert

Wow, it's time for a doozy of a truth alert, folks. First, visit Amy Mischler's blog post titled "I'm Innocent!!!" It won't take long. Finished? Okay, here's we go. First, a quote from Mischler (the emphasis is ours):

On May of 2006, I was convicted of domestic violence against my ex husband. What I supposedly did to hurt him was to march in public in a sign in protest against him and the County Attorney and purposely refused to give my youngest son his medicine.

Now, what's interesting here is that Mischler, yet AGAIN fails to mention that she forced her own sick child to march with her. And let's also remember, it wasn't just "marching," it was begging for money (we wonder if anybody who gave Mischler money has considered that she defrauded them?). Remember, she also "failed" to mention this fact in her low-budget horror film about Greg Stumbo on YouTube.

Since Mischler can't remember it, apparently, let's say that again, for effect.

Amy Mischler - not Greg Stumbo - paraded her own sick child around the streets of Pikeville, forcing him to carry a sign demeaning and slandering his own father.

Amy Mischler - not Julie Paxton - denied her own child medicine and instead chose to use the money given to her by her ex-husband to buy her own medicine.

Amy Mischler - not Jonah Stevens - failed to pay any part of her own children's healthcare expenses, despite having agreed to pay fifty percent as part of the original custody settlement (to our knowledge, she's never paid a dime).

Further, if you saw the News-Express story, you'll know the children in fact DID have health insurance, and Mischler admitted it herself. And yet, she chooses to leave that bit out as well.

So we're confident if you investigate this issue, you'll find that Mischler was not, in fact, found "innocent." Rather, she herself argued that what she did constituted "abuse" and not "domestic violence." Notice this passage from her statement (again, the emphasis is ours):

The new Judge appointed was Judge John David Preston. This Judge ruled that the EPO petition had "insufficient grounds . . for the issuance of a Domestic Violence Order". Then he ordered for the DVO to be vacated, which is a legal word for saying its no longer valid.

Note, the word "innocent" doesn't appear in that particular legal phrase. That's Mischler's concoction. "Insufficient grounds" does not consititute "innocent." A child was humiliated, and now Mischler's playing with words to make herself appear the victim.

So now it's time for another Crucial Question, friends, and it's a tough one, so give yourself some time to think about it. Ready? Here we go:

Q: Let's say you were a child sick with strep throat, and were paraded about in the heat on the streets of Pikeville, forced into begging for money like a trained monkey and carrying a sign slandering your own father. Would you rather call that "abuse" or "domestic violence?"

Chew on that a while, and see what you come up with. We're sure you'll be just as disgusted as we are over Mischler's claiming victory with regards to this event.

Stumbo stumble

We're sure the 'esteemed' Amy Mischler (or her anonymous alter ego) will attempt to make some hay out of the fact that we've recently rejected a comment to our previous post. But we want to make one thing clear - we have no interest in lionizing or demonizing Attorney General Greg Stumbo here. There are plenty of opportunities to discuss Stumbo's behavior and/or politics, and we encourage all to do so. But this is not the place.

We're here to discuss much more important issues. We won't sit idly by and watch children be used as weapons and tools for glory-seeking and attention-grabbing.

Stay tuned for more Crucial Questions.